I also don't see how you can offer any real proof of what goes on server side.
The real proof is provided using sha256 hashes. The site commits to a specific server-side secret before the player does anything by publishing the hash of that secret. Then the player picks their own client-side seed and both seeds are used to generate the rolls. When the player is done playing he is shown the server-side secret. The player can hash that secret and verify that its hash matches the hash he was shown back at the start.
Any programmer knows that "provably fair" could just be being controlled server side/behind the scenes by subroutines to concoct "provably fair" to the end user.
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm a programmer and I know that there's no way the server can cheat the player. I think the problem here is that either you don't understand how it works, or you do understand how it works but want to try to persuade others that it doesn't work for some reason. I've seen a few "traditional" casinos recently trying to tarnish the reputation of provable fairness so that they can justify refusing to adopt it.
Without any real transparency of what goes on in the server I don't know how you could prove anything.
The algorithm is public. The code isn't. The outputs of the algorithm are public. I think you're suggesting that there is some way we could be running code which implements a different algorithm but which gets the same results as the published algorithm? If so, would it matter? All we need to prove is that your rolls were predetermined, by you, in a way that we couldn't affect. And that's what we do prove.
It is a great idea though, and people seem to be falling for it.
I agree. It's an amazing innovation. For the first time it is possible for players to be mathematically guaranteed of a fair game. There's nothing to "fall for".
And where is the proof that the "server seed" wasn't just generated for you based on a specific result?
The site publishes the hash of the server seed before any play happens. ie. before any result. And before the player picks their own seed. That's the proof - because later the site publishes its server seed and the player verifies that the published server seed does in fact hash to the hash that was published in advance.
The only way the site could cheat the player would be if they could find multiple seeds which hash to the same thing, and as far as I am aware that has never been done. Finding hash collisions is meant to be very hard. And when that is no longer the case, new hash functions are developed to restore that property.
There is real no transparency of what goes on in the server, to put it in layman's terms - the server shows you what it wants you to see.
I'm not going to argue this any further.
The server shows you what you need to see to verify that everything is fair, but doesn't show you enough for you to be able to cheat. How else would you have it?
Have you read the FAQ on Provably fair? It explains exactly whats going on server side. Once you know the server seed, you can sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate the rolls that should have been produced.
Thanks for quoting the posts before they were deleted. It's useful to see the various ways the people who are scared of provable fairness use to try to discredit it.
